Friedrich Nietzsche died of tertiary syphilis at age 54 yrs in 1900, he is thought to have developed a taste for "mansex" during his tenure at university in Vienna, he appears to have been reinfected after a patronizing a men only brothel in Naples, Italy. He had become mute and demented, and had been cared for by his family for the last decade of his earthly existence, so from my perspective it is not for him to be lecturing anyone about "morals" .. his literary output was unreadable in any case.
I could grant you all of that and it is still a ridiculous genetic fallacy.
Creative geniuses are often both eccentric and afflicted.
Nietzsche's influence is undeniable and his impact on professional philosophy, literature, and politics is all that's needed to justify (demand) any serious person's engagement with his thought.
Reading someone's philosophy does not require you to retrace their steps or to fuck anything they fucked. It is plausible that there are facts (possibly unsavory ones) about many people you consider "worth it" that you do not know and don't care to know. I am not convinced Neitzsche had any gay sex, but even if he did, condemning his philosophy for this would be like dismissing Wittgenstein (who probably did have gay sex), and this would be just as ludicrous.
People use the same kind of reasoning to dismiss Hitler's thought. B-b-b-but he was a bad man! Sure, the things that upset you are different than the things that upset the liberal crowd, but the justification in each case is exactly the same.
Wittgenstein nuthin', his "Tractatus" has been decried as unreadable since it first appeared in the 1920's..
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus-Logico-Philosphicus pdf is stylistically about as strange a text as any student of philosophy is apt to ever encounter, it’s Latin title was chosen by Wittgenstein to echo a publication of Baruch Spinoza.
The author has numbered the remarks using an elaborate system to guide the reader. This means that if you just read the remarks chronologically, starting at the top of the page and reading to the bottom of the page as you would any book, you won’t be able to actually follow the “argument”.
He also makes some general claims about the nature of philosophical inquiry which, like his ethical claims, are rather cryptic. In short, the reader not only has to decide if the doctrines (a version of logical atomism) that make up the bulk of the text are correct, but he also has to decide if the views expressed in the final pages actually do follow from what came before. Quora.
Schopenhauer, Hegel, Heidegge, Mencken & Spinoza as for him, they try to obfuscate the real issues - Zionist infiltration - with long words and incomprehensible diction .. I never delved too deeply into Tractatus I had heard about it and carried out a preliminary investigation, in some ways it reminded of another unreadable American tract, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 21:25:48 ago (+1/-0)
I should have specified the later Wittgenstein. That's my fault. The Tractatus is unreadable. His logical notation may have worked for him, but I find it atrocious. Anyway, I think he abandoned tbe positivist project and, to that end, he was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. His style remained strange even in his later works, but they changed the way I think forever.
"Unreadable"? If you think Nietzsche is unreadable you probably haven't read a lot of philosophy. Among German philosophers he probably trails only Schopenhauer in being not difficult.
Hegel or Heidegger? Now those guys are "unreadable".
In any event, while bio info is valuable in knowing the why of how a thinker arrived at the conclusions he did - Mencken handles the personal attacks well enough in his bio of Nietzsche. In sum: they're just that. Personal attacks. We can dismiss ad hominems as informal logical fallacies immediately. A man's work product is either right or wrong. On its own merits.
While ideas should be based on their own merits, whether or not ones limited time should be taken to consider them can be partially based on the persons whose ideas they are.
Now, consider this: in The End of History and the Last Man, which as the title implies is influenced by strong fascist influences Hegel and Nietzsche, Francis Fukuyama says Nietzsche is the foremost threat to liberal ideological hegemony on the right.
If you know anything about Fukuyama's book you'll probably recognize that's pretty significant. Fukuyama was hailing American democracy and capitalist domination in a post-Soviet world, predicting it offered the only thing in town going forward. But Nietzsche presents the challenge.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 1 point 2 weeksMay 30, 2025 04:08:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] RoxannaHardbutt
[ - ] RoxannaHardbutt 1 point 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 17:17:22 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] SirNiggsalot
[ - ] SirNiggsalot 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 18:17:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 20:33:35 ago (+0/-0)
Creative geniuses are often both eccentric and afflicted.
Nietzsche's influence is undeniable and his impact on professional philosophy, literature, and politics is all that's needed to justify (demand) any serious person's engagement with his thought.
Reading someone's philosophy does not require you to retrace their steps or to fuck anything they fucked. It is plausible that there are facts (possibly unsavory ones) about many people you consider "worth it" that you do not know and don't care to know. I am not convinced Neitzsche had any gay sex, but even if he did, condemning his philosophy for this would be like dismissing Wittgenstein (who probably did have gay sex), and this would be just as ludicrous.
People use the same kind of reasoning to dismiss Hitler's thought. B-b-b-but he was a bad man! Sure, the things that upset you are different than the things that upset the liberal crowd, but the justification in each case is exactly the same.
[ + ] RoxannaHardbutt
[ - ] RoxannaHardbutt 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 21:08:08 ago (+0/-0)
Wittgenstein nuthin', his "Tractatus" has been decried as unreadable since it first appeared in the 1920's..
The author has numbered the remarks using an elaborate system to guide the reader. This means that if you just read the remarks chronologically, starting at the top of the page and reading to the bottom of the page as you would any book, you won’t be able to actually follow the “argument”.
He also makes some general claims about the nature of philosophical inquiry which, like his ethical claims, are rather cryptic. In short, the reader not only has to decide if the doctrines (a version of logical atomism) that make up the bulk of the text are correct, but he also has to decide if the views expressed in the final pages actually do follow from what came before. Quora.
Schopenhauer, Hegel, Heidegge, Mencken & Spinoza as for him, they try to obfuscate the real issues - Zionist infiltration - with long words and incomprehensible diction .. I never delved too deeply into Tractatus I had heard about it and carried out a preliminary investigation, in some ways it reminded of another unreadable American tract, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 21:25:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 22:55:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -1 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 18:55:38 ago (+0/-1)
Hegel or Heidegger? Now those guys are "unreadable".
In any event, while bio info is valuable in knowing the why of how a thinker arrived at the conclusions he did - Mencken handles the personal attacks well enough in his bio of Nietzsche. In sum: they're just that. Personal attacks. We can dismiss ad hominems as informal logical fallacies immediately. A man's work product is either right or wrong. On its own merits.
[ + ] jooterblast
[ - ] jooterblast 1 point 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 19:49:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 20:02:50 ago (+0/-0)
Now, consider this: in The End of History and the Last Man, which as the title implies is influenced by strong fascist influences Hegel and Nietzsche, Francis Fukuyama says Nietzsche is the foremost threat to liberal ideological hegemony on the right.
If you know anything about Fukuyama's book you'll probably recognize that's pretty significant. Fukuyama was hailing American democracy and capitalist domination in a post-Soviet world, predicting it offered the only thing in town going forward. But Nietzsche presents the challenge.
More:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFDOh8Wfrk4
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 2 weeksMay 29, 2025 17:05:49 ago (+0/-0)
https://archive.searchvoat.co/v/OccidentalEnclave/3878085